Private Gun Owners are are USELESS to national defense, right?


PDA






MicroBalrog
July 20, 2003, 09:14 AM
http://www.isayeret.com/sniping/civi-sniper.jpg

Someone better tell this guy.

This is an Israeli Civil Guard Sniper. He owns this rifle.

If you enjoyed reading about "Private Gun Owners are are USELESS to national defense, right?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ACP230
July 20, 2003, 10:38 AM
A book in my library, "A Comprehensive Small Arms Manual," by Charles T. Haven was used in forming Home Guards during World War II. Forms inside could be reproduced and used to solicit guns from private owners that were used to arm the Home Guard. Thre is also a form for recording who the guns came from so they could be returned, if possible, after the hostilities ended.

This shows that through World War II civilians and their arms were a definite part of the National Defense.

I also saw a story about the Civil Air Patrol. They went from spotting German submarines, to harassing them with low level passes, to bombing subs. CAP members were credited with destroying one sub, according to the story.

cool45auto
July 20, 2003, 11:03 AM
:cool:

Mordwyn
July 20, 2003, 12:08 PM
That is possibly one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

A German rifle, with most likely German optics held by a Jew, a civilian to boot, defending Israel.

God in heaven if that scene could have been played out 70 some years ago across Europe.

saddenedcitizen
July 20, 2003, 12:18 PM
The Japanese were VERY concerned about armed citizens when considering
invasion of Hawaii and/or U.S. mainland.
As far as the U.S. military turning on U.S. citizens keep this in mind -
In many other countries, especially totalitarian ones, the military personnel
are kept far more 'isolated' than in this country(fewer family visits. leaves,
'normal' day to day life etc.) Many are in the military in other countries simply to have a dry (sometimes) bed and enough to eat and MAYBE some money - basically conscripts coerced 'financially rather than by force. These types of situations create individuals who are FAR less likely to have compunctions against firing on 'their own people'. It's called conditioning.
In this country, things are different (& better IMHO) as in -
BS!!!, I'm not attacking that town - I used to live there/my friend's family lives there and I know them well/you try to shoot my family and I'll shoot YOU !!
I think that the closeness of the military families in this country,while not totally preventing the possibility of this, would make it very unlikely.

Hal
July 20, 2003, 12:39 PM
Lest we forget,,
'e's got 2 tanks backing him up too.- - - Least I hope the tanks are on his side or he's one deaf and dumb sucka to let a tank get close enough to do a prostate check on 'im. ;)

Seriously though,,, a good friend (sadly he passed away some time ago) of mine was a resistance fighter in Yugoslavia during WWII. He had some good stories about the young girls that he fought alongside of, and how they dealt with German tank crews.
Scary stuff.

goon
July 20, 2003, 01:44 PM
My dad, the man who taught me to shoot, isn't military material.
He is 55, overweight, and smokes like a forest fire.
He can also hit anything he can see with his old '99 Savage.
I would bet that he could knock off bad guys with little difficulty, and he is about the worst example of the ideal resistance fighter.
No military training, no physical fitness, and no idea of what tactical means.
None of that matters. He can shoot and he has always loved a good fight.
I saw him take a whitetail through the brainstem at a paced 400 yards once.
With a country full of people like that any invading army would have real problems as soon as the infantry got out of the APC's.
Shoot the guy with the radio first, the machine gunner next, then anyone who looks like they are in charge as the opportunity presents itself.

SCOTTYDOG
July 20, 2003, 02:05 PM
:D

Any one seen the movie "Red Dawn" with Patrick Swazye And Charlie Sheen from several years ago? These "civilian" teenagers gave the well trained, well armed Russian invaders serious FITS For several months.

Don't discount the armed citizen when he/she is ticked off.

Jerrywahid
July 20, 2003, 02:11 PM
Simply Excellent. Thank you.

Brian Maffei
July 20, 2003, 03:12 PM
Great pic.

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
July 20, 2003, 03:19 PM
Anyone else notice the guy in the picture is a codgernaut, about my age, grey hair and glasses?

:D

'But the same age as the rifle, maybe a little younger. Old age and treachary will overcome youth and vigor any day.

Regards,
Rabbit.

kudu
July 20, 2003, 06:15 PM
Look real close where the tank cannons are pointing. :eek: :what:

4v50 Gary
July 20, 2003, 06:25 PM
Oh, the gunners in those APCs are probably going to shoot the flies off the guy's hat. Won't even come near him. :o Trust me.

Now, we Americans would have gotten a "tactical" synthetic stock on that rifle as well as paint it and dress it up with burlap. We need to send Skunkabilly over to give them some "fashion" lessons. ;)

MicroBalrog
July 20, 2003, 06:46 PM
Look real close where the tank cannons are pointing

I've seen BAD 4 Rules violations, but this...

plainsman66
July 20, 2003, 07:03 PM
Those tankers have their tubes "on the decks",just sittin back enjoying the show!.and alot of private gun owners used to shoot those big guns and most still could once its liberated from the original owner!

JohnKSa
July 20, 2003, 09:08 PM
Any one seen the movie "Red Dawn" with Patrick Swazye And Charlie Sheen from several years ago? These "civilian" teenagers gave the well trained, well armed Russian invaders serious FITS For several months.
The Red Dawn scenario is unworkable against a modern military thanks to multispectral UAV surveillance.

A person or group of persons in a wilderness environment are easy pickings for someone who can look down on you with IR cameras. Sure you can hide effectively, but not and get anything done at the same time.

The way to do it is the way it is done. Work in population centers. Sure the surveillance will see you, but there's no way to separate you from the other thousands of people who have a legit reason to be there.

MicroBalrog
July 20, 2003, 09:19 PM
And then there's the fact that UAV's can't see through roofs.

Subways and sewers are great, too.

Monte Harrison
July 21, 2003, 01:01 PM
Any one seen the movie "Red Dawn" with Patrick Swazye And Charlie Sheen from several years ago? These "civilian" teenagers gave the well trained, well armed Russian invaders serious FITS For several months.Point taken, but we must not lose sight of the fact that this was a MOVIE. The story of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising is more compelling, because it actually happened.

foghornl
July 21, 2003, 02:08 PM
He is probably deceased by now, But remember the quote from WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto on why the Japanese did not invade the US Mainland after the crushing US defeat in Pearl Harbor ?

Something along the line of:

"...We were not so foolish as to step into that pool of quicksand. [We knew] there would be a rifle waiting behind every blade of grass..."

Pretty darned strong argument to any invading force, I would say.

T.Stahl
July 21, 2003, 02:38 PM
He is probably deceased by now,...
He went down in a G4M Betty, shot down by a P-38.

cordex
July 21, 2003, 02:52 PM
He went down in a G4M Betty, shot down by a P-38.
Japanese communication codes? What Japanese communication codes?

Any kind of grassroots resistance effort would be extremely bloody on all sides. Don't get romantic notions of nailing an officer at 400 yards and then melting into the forest without examining the military doctrine covering how to deal with snipers.

I believe it could happen. I know for a fact that it wouldn't be simple.

BogBabe
July 21, 2003, 08:23 PM
I'm in the middle of reading an old Dave Barry book, written during the Reagan administration. There was a passage that seemed appropriate to add to this thread. Here's what he had to say:

Look closely at Central America, and try to imagine what would happen if this vital region were to fall into Communist hands. What would happen is a lot of Communists would be stung repeatedly by vicious tropical insects the size of mature hamsters.

We cannot afford to have this happen. We cannot afford to have a horde of Communists down there becoming so cranky and welt-covered that eventually, just for an excuse to get out of the jungle, they foment a revolution in Mexico, which means you'd have Communist guerrilla troops right next to Texas. I doubt they could take Texas by force. Texas has the largest fleet of armed pickup trucks of any major power, and any invading guerrilla army would be shot and run over repeatedly before it got half a mile, especially if it invaded on a saturday night.

bad_dad_brad
July 21, 2003, 09:37 PM
Red Dawn aside - I like that movie a lot - but today that scenario would be highly unlikely.

The only army currently capable of invading America is our own. God help us if it ever comes to that. Things would have to be pretty desperate, and as they say "desperate times breed desperate people." If things were that bad, I am sure that many citizens would be shooting back. Nothing short of a civil war.

But I see no indicators that that sort of desperation is around the bend. Still, I do feel safer knowing my AR-15 is always close.

Standing Wolf
July 21, 2003, 09:39 PM
Every time an armed law-abiding American citizen stops a crime, the nation is safer. I believe homeland security begins at home.

Majic
July 21, 2003, 10:02 PM
The only army currently capable of invading America is our own.

That kind of thinking breeds complacency. Never underestimate your opponents. We may have already been invaded covertly and they are waiting a time to attack. Will they win? Who knows, but don't rule out the possiblity.

bad_dad_brad
July 22, 2003, 12:01 AM
Majic,

I am not at all complacent. Just who did you have in mind? The Chicoms? - we would see them coming a mile away. The French or Germans? - they need our greenbacks. Osama and his band of merry men? - all they can do is knock over a few buildings when we are sleeping. Or perhaps the Illuminati? - a popular urban legend best left in Laura Croft movie fantasies.

May I take the liberty of quoting the great Abraham Lincoln at his Springfield, Illinois - Lyceum address in 1838:

"How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years."

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

America will never be conquered from without, but only from within - and the Civil War almost proved that true. Wise words that Mr. Lincoln, it is the one thing I am so proud about being from Illinois - and that is - our prairie lawyer - Abraham. As he sagely pointed out, our freedom is ours to keep or give away.

Boats
July 22, 2003, 12:40 AM
The UAV would be a problem for awhile just like the Me 262 jet fighter harassed the "obsolete" allied air forces until they found its Achilles heel. Just shoot it on the ground or when taking off or landing. UAVs are vulnerable coming onto or off mission. I am also pretty certain that a Barrett would do a number on the mobile van the smaller ones are linked to. Snipers are force multipliers without equal and there'd be too many hunters out there for them to all not get any good at it. They tie down disproportinate opposition forces through little more than the fear of random death. One bullet at a time, like raindrops on the mightiest rock, will eventually wear down the seemingly invincible object into so much gravel.

Darwinian action would make resistance more effective all of the time. The Russians, while not as sophisticated as we are electronically, still have NVGs and IR and can't suppress Chechnya without a high price in blood. One of our Army's premier divisions is having trouble pacifying a relatively small portion of Iraq.

Heck, given that any invading army must maintain the popularity of at least some collaborators, they can't afford to kill everybody. Therein lay the advantage for the guerilla.

The problem is also one of numbers, time and space. If our own armed forces were turned against civilians too smart to fight them conventionally, many of the organized armed forces advantages disappear as they are not surgical enough. When boots on the ground are required they are exposed to danger. In a nation of 270+ million, if only 5 percent decide to lethally resist in those dreaded "leaderless cells," the Army and Marines and the entire police forces of the United States would still be vastly outnumbered--and probally outgunned in small arms too. I think they'd have a retention and recruiting problem before too long.

Majic
July 22, 2003, 02:48 AM
Fine Speech form a great man. I'm not pointing out any particular group, because if I can then they wouldn't be covert. With our open door policy and basic freedoms, a determined adversary, with time, can send his army over here covertly, arm them with firearms purchased here, stage attacks in key areas and cause massive damage. The key phrase is "with time".
Just because we haven't seen this happen, doesn't mean the possibility don't exists. 3 jets simultaniously caused alot of damage on Sept. 11th and that act wasn't seen coming. Suppose it was 30 jets taking off from all over this nation instead.

History has a way of repeating itself. From the Greeks to the Soviet Union. As great as they all were, they all fell in time. We also have no magical shield to protect us as leaders of the pack. We best heed the lessons of history learned the hard way by so many who preceeded us.

Poodleshooter
July 22, 2003, 10:46 AM
Their is one scenario in which private gun owners would be next to useless: a genocidal war conducted by a well equipped military.
Luckily, those militaries who practice this kind of war are all underdeveloped and mostly incompetent. Currently, that is.
When the enemy doesn't care about sorting out civilians from military targets, there's not a lot of use hiding "amongst the population".

Sam Adams
July 22, 2003, 08:19 PM
Those of you who don't think that a bunch of civilians can take on a modern army don't know your history too well. Comrade Tito of Yugoslavia was once asked how he intended to take on the mighty Wehrmacht, with its new tanks. He replied, "When they get out of their new tanks to take a piss, we'll shoot them with our old rifles." He and his did a pretty good job - they tied down nearly 40 divisions of Wehrmacht for years, despite the Germans not being particularly well-known for trying to avoid civilian casualties. After the Germans, even the 6 million-strong Red Army didn't want to invade Yugoslavia after Tito gave Stalin the finger. THAT is what an armed civilian population will do for you.

The lesson here is that no one is invulnerable all of the time. Check out one of the scenes early in "Enemy at the Gates" to see that even generals aren't always safe. Regular soldiers can't stay buttoned up in tanks or APC's forever. The trouble that our soldiers are having in Iraq is but a taste of what an invading or tyrannical force would face here. In Iraq the opposition is half-hearted, mainly in support of a regime that was brutal and is out of power. Here, people would be fighting for their very freedom. We'd fight like the Russians at Stalingrad - which wasn't exactly a healthy environment for the German soldiers.

JohnKSa
July 22, 2003, 10:15 PM
Boats,

Modern UAVs can be controlled from half a world away via satellite. Some can stay airborne for close to two days. That means that they can take off and land a few hundred miles away from you and be controlled by someone several thousand miles away from you.

The newest ones don't even really need a controller, per se. They can be preprogrammed to take off, fly to their station, orbit for a fixed period of time and return to base and land with no operator intervention.

Besides, even if you manage to pop a UAV, you have to remember one thing. The military considers them disposable. They have even been known to use them as decoys to draw fire while another aircraft orbits out of sight waiting to launch a precision munition at the poor guy who thinks he just won a small battle by shooting at a UAV.

If you want to read some really hilarious and completely unrealistic scenarios, check out the column written by "M14 Fred" of Shotgun News. He's going to get a lot of people killed if we ever do get invaded or there is a revolution. Oh well, in the meantime, he's making lots of sales...

Please note that I am not saying that either invasion or revolution is probable, nor am I endorsing such actions, just making comments about hypothetical situations.

Sam Adams,

I'm not saying that armed citizens are irrelevant. Far from it. I'm just saying that a few armed citizens trying to set an ambush for troops from a modern military are going to have a rude awakening. Given the advanced surveillance techniques available to modern militaries, armed resistance from the citizens will have to take place in urban scenarios. Look around the world and see what gives modern militaries fits. It's not Lone Rangers ambushing soldiers out in the middle of nowher--militaries are specifically designed to rapidly detect, pinpoint and deal with those kinds of targets. No, the headache of the modern military is the guy popping around a corner in the city, shooting a soldier and disappearing into the crowd.

Sam Adams
July 26, 2003, 12:28 PM
I agree that the most effective way to resist a modern military is in an urban environment. Of course, a single resistance member out in the middle of nowhere could take a single shot or two at a range of 500 yards, kill or wound an enemy soldier, and probably get away. If 10,000 people across a nation do that once a month, the invading army will suffer lots of casualites and have fits trying to find these people. There just aren't enough UAV's for that - remember what it was like finding the DC area "snipers?" THOUSANDS of police, aided by satellite technology and the FBI, took weeks to find those 2 losers, and they seemed to want to get caught - what if you had reasonably intelligent and careful people who DIDN'T want to get caught?

Anyway, the best thing would be if nothing of this kind ever happened here. I hope that this remains an entirely theoretical discussion.

Ian
July 26, 2003, 05:24 PM
The weak point of UAVs may well be the control signal between them and their remote pilots. It would be interesting to find out how well that link is encrypted, and whether a good software programmer could hijack one.

JohnKSa
July 26, 2003, 09:19 PM
Sam Adams,

A UAV can have a field of regard that stretches 200 miles in any direction.

Which means that it's child's play for a UAV to observe a friendly force and notify them anytime anyone tries to get into rifle range/block the road/lay an ambush.

The question I always have about these wilderness scenarios is: "Why the heck is this military contingent wandering around out in the middle of nowhere waiting for someone to take potshots at them?"

First of all, they're NOT just going to be wandering around waiting to be shot at.

Second, they're going to be protected when they are travelling through relatively remote areas. Partly because they don't want to be shot at, and partly because it's so pitifully simple to monitor the area that it's just plain foolish not to.

Thirdly, even a large contingent of people shooting at a military group at close range with rifles is likely to have a remarkably minimal effect. Witness the Blackhawk Down incident where a tiny group of U.S. soldiers took on a city. Sure, some were killed and more were injured, but a total of around 100 U.S. soldiers with virtually no air support or heavy armor killed an estimated 1500 attackers. Now, if a few thousand attackers at close range were unable to destroy a small group of modern soldiers, imagine how anticlimactic a single shot at 500 yards is going to be on a moving column of vehicles. The vehicles are designed to take rifle fire, some even handle RPG hits while keeping the occupants safe. It's not like there are going to be guys running along side the Hummers at 40 mph. It's going to go something like this.

Hey Frank, come and look at this--looks like someone musta taken a shot at you sometime. See here where this bullet went in the side of the door and was stopped by the kevlar?

Gee, Joe, you're right. Whatta ya figure? Maybe a .270? Well, I'd report it if I wanted to do a ream of paperwork. Let's stick something over the hole and maybe no one will notice.

Sorry, but the Red Dawn, "M14 Fred" scenarios are pure fiction. Good entertainment perhaps, but totally unrealistic against a modern military.


Ian,

I suspect that the government has thought of that... If there's one thing that we should have learned from the two Gulf Wars it's that the U.S. Military/Government always has a card or two to play that no one realizes is even in the deck. Besides, a guy who starts trying to transmit stuff (to hijack the link) in the middle of a war zone is going to eat a HARM before he can say High Speed Anti Radiation Missile... And remember, even if you manage to hi-jack one, they are considered to be disposable. The military would like nothing more than for people to sacrifice themselves trying to destroy/deter disposable assets.

MicroBalrog
July 26, 2003, 09:29 PM
Sorry, but the Red Dawn, "M14 Fred" scenarios are pure fiction. Good entertainment perhaps, but totally unrealistic against a modern military

Tell it to a couple of guys I know...

do the words Bekaa Valley, Grozny, Gilo ring a bell to you?

JohnKSa
July 26, 2003, 09:35 PM
MicroBalrog,

Could you be less cryptic?

MicroBalrog
July 26, 2003, 09:50 PM
Lot's of people I know serve or have served in the IDF. They know first hand that a Western military confronting armed guerillas in a city is out of luck. Bekaa Valley is an area in Lebanon - IDF's biggest fiasco.

Grozny is the capital of Chechnya. Russians are fighting the Chechnian terrorists there, and they still haven't won completely. Note that Russia's army is bigger than Chechnya's whole population, literally.

Gilo is a small Jerusalem neighbourhood (the houses behind the tanks on that fotograph). Downhill from Gilo is Beit-Jallah, a Palestinian village were the Hamas people have taken the habit of shooting full clips of 5.56 ammo into Gilo.

JohnKSa
July 26, 2003, 10:24 PM
But isn't that exactly what I've been saying?

For effective resistance to take place, it must happen in population centers--not in the Red Dawn wilderness, or in the endless treks through remote areas that "M14 Fred" seems to think will be common.

G21NE
July 26, 2003, 11:00 PM
Not to rag on hunters too much, but most of the hunters around here chase their game with a CB radio and 4x4 pickups (yes, even deer). Stealth for them is closing the door on the pickup really quietly. (After driving to the spot where they open the door really quietly.)

They wouldn't have much luck against a trained army, even a foreign conscript army. Remember, RPGs are not sold at flea markets here in the US.

How is it that Iraq is so far ahead of us in that respect, but so far behind in everything else?

RangerHAAF
July 27, 2003, 12:38 AM
The situation of the US military opposing it's citizens is highly unlikely but it is possible. I think that a lot of people in this forum have not considered that a lot of military innovations have come with civilian cooperation. The two groups are mutually symbiotic. For example, in WWII without the help, ideas and logistical wherewithal of the Detroit automakers America couldn't have produced all of the tanks,planes, and guns that were needed to win the war.

It was a whole lot easier to give the big companies contracts and a lot of money to build our war machine than to hold guns to their heads (as fascist Hitler did) and tell them what they are going to build and how much they would be paid to do it. I also realize that was a different time with different beliefs. Our grand parents laid it all on the line and the world ended up being a better place as a result of what they did.

The end numbers are in favor of the civilians but a lot of people would have to die to set things straight, which makes the 2nd Amendment especially relevent today. I also wonder if the majority of gun owners have the personal fortitude that the generations that came before us had? Would we risk all of the material comforts that have been built up to make an honest stand in order to oppose tyranny?

Cal4D4
July 27, 2003, 02:41 AM
Consider how neighborhoods have stood up to the tyranny of gangs. Most neighborhoods try pretty hard to limit their impact, but some areas are controlled by them. Some have perished resisting them.

MicroBalrog
July 27, 2003, 04:00 AM
Remember, RPGs are not sold at flea markets here in the US.

And you point is? It doesn't matter

Case in point: The "carbine sniper". Guy opened up on a check point in the West Bank. Killed 16 people, most of them elite military, trained, armed, armoured. Used, according the investigation, an SKS carbine.

And they haven't caught him yet AFAIK.:banghead:

goon
July 28, 2003, 09:28 PM
Consider how neighborhoods have stood up to the tyranny of gangs. Most neighborhoods try pretty hard to limit their impact, but some areas are controlled by them. Some have perished resisting them.

Consider for a moment how much combined destructive force the members of this board have.
Everyone here is a shooter.
Many are ex-military with certain, how shall we put it, skills.
Would you want to be the gang member to try stepping into that barrage of copper jacketed lead?
Not me.
The thing that allows gangs to survive is society itself.
We are too civilized, and it makes us vulnerable to those who aren't.
If gang members had to worry about being targeted for assination by angry citizens, maybe they would be a little more polite.
A Winchester or SKS has quite a bit more range than a Glock.
If you really want to stand up to any aggressor, you have to be willing to go at least as far as they are.
Preferably farther.

blue86buick
July 29, 2003, 12:18 PM
Most neighborhoods try pretty hard to limit their impact, but some areas are controlled by them.
The problem with this is that the GG's are supposed to obey the law, but the BG's don't. So, it's easier for them to control the neighborhoods than it is for the GG's to get rid of the BG's.

Sam Adams
July 29, 2003, 06:53 PM
JohnKSa,

While it is true that an invading military (or ours, if ever used to suppress the population here) would concentrate more on cities than anywhere else, don't think that there'd be none in the countryside. There are lots of things in the middle of nowhere that need to be guarded if an invader is to exert control - oil fields, nuke plants, mines, key rail junctions, roads, airfields, etc. Not everything can be 100% guarded, nor can all of the guards feel 100% safe. The fact that some UAV's can see for 200 miles in every direction is actually a hindrance. It is meaningless to have that capability when talking of one or a small group of resisters - they are used to find armored vehicles or large concentrations of troops, not individuals. To analyze every human-sized target in an area of 125,600 square miles (the area of a circle with a 200-mile radius) is not only absurd (how many deer, large wolves, small bears, innocent people doing nothing, false readings, etc. will your troops chase before dismissing ALL such "hits"?), but way beyond the abilities of ANY military. And the lone gunman can do a lot of damage, if he is moderately or highly skilled. Read Jeff Cooper's book "To Ride, Shoot Straight and Speak the Truth" (or something like that) - near the end he has a good story about what one guy with a bolt-action rifle did to a port area during WW2.

By the way, if I were leading an invasion against a hostile population, I'd stay away from the cities. I'd simply isolate them and lay siege. Let them starve for a while, then blast one or two off the map with artillery or bombers - the rest will go passively, especially if you promise them food in return for order. Then, all that would be left would be the countryside. And where, exactly, would your soldiers be while laying siege to the cities? Buttoning down control of the roads and rails between the cities-there's your target-rich environment for resisters.

Regarding your contention that isolated troops will always be protected, I'll go back to what Tito said about the Germans: "When they come out of their new tanks to take a piss, we'll shoot them with our old rifles." Tell me how much good the steel- or kevlar-reinforced Humvees or APCs will do when some soldier goes behind a tree to do his business - he'll literally be caught with his pants down. Why would any combatant with any sense fight the enemy at his strongest point? The whole point is that something of this nature would be a guerilla operation, not a bunch of yahoos in F-150's shooting at tank columns on an open plain in broad daylight.

I think that Japanese Admiral Yamamoto knew what he was talking about when he said "To invade America is insane - there's a rifle behind every blade of grass." While I don't pretend to know exactly what he was thinking at the time, I rather doubt that he was contemplating combat only within cities when he made that statement.

I'll grant you that most of the action will take place in or very near cities, but an invader needs control of at least the roads and rails in between large cities. Ask the Russians about how easy getting that is against a determined foe - and they had a HUGE technological advantage over the Afghans. If you have enough people who snipe only once or twice a month, carefully plotting the where and how of doing the deed and escaping during their "down time," then you're going to get lots of casualties over time. Not enough to defeat the enemy, but enough to make him feel pain. Do the math - we have 300 million people. Let's say that we get nuked, losing 100 million people in the process, and then get invaded. So we've got 200 million people, all of whom are pretty P.O.'d and many of whom have guns and the skills to reach out and touch someone. If only 1 in 10,000 of these people go invader-hunting, you've got 20,000 combatants. They'll probably be quite disorganized, but that is likely an advantage (leaderless resistance, and all that this implies) - we found out in Vietnam that hunting every single lone gunman is not only not an easy thing, it is impossible. Hell, we found that out last fall in the DC area - with thousands of cops and satellites and UAVs, it took weeks to find 2 poorly-skilled morons that seemed to want to get caught. What, pray tell, do you think that a guy trained by the Army or Marines as a sniper could do? Anyway, suppose that 20,000 guys took out a single enemy each month - that's 240,000 per year, hardly a pinprick. Even if you cut that by a factor of 10, to account for lots of resistance casualties and low moral after a while, it is still 24,000 per year - that's a division! That's to say nothing of those needed to bury them, care for the wounded, etc. I simply don't agree with you regarding the effectiveness of a highly-armed populace against an invader.

Regarding Somalia - yeah, the untrained rabble had a tough time with Army Rangers, but that is hardly a fair or realistic example. First of all, the vast majority of soldiers are less skilled than Rangers. Second, all they needed was 10 moderately-skilled guys with scoped bolt-action rifles on the rooftops 500 yards away, and we'd have lost every one of those guys inside of an hour or 2. Also, what would our guys have done if the rabble was armed with semi-auto AR-15s or 80-year-old bolt-action military rifles instead of "spray and pray" AKs? They'd have had to deal with less voluminous but aimed fire, which would have killed our guys in a short time, even absent rooftop snipers. The Rangers were highly skilled, and used all of their skills in an extraordinary way - but they were still lucky.

I've never said that such a resistance would be easy, or casualty-free. The numbers would likely be very lopsided in favor of the invaders against "militia" troops - but the militia would have the advantage of numbers. Americans have shown time after time that they are willing to risk their lives to obtain or keep freedom, and have shown great skill and determination in fighting enemies. I would expect that the British also thought that a bunch of rabble could never defeat the finest army on Earth, but Lord Cornwallis learned differently. So will any future invader.

John Galt
July 29, 2003, 11:31 PM
>>>>>That is possibly one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.
A German rifle, with most likely German optics held by a Jew, a civilian to boot, defending Israel.
God in heaven if that scene could have been played out 70 some years ago across Europe.<<<<<<<<<

And, in another post, Micro complains about Israel's gun laws. (I thought they were open!).

Well, Israel was formed to gather togeather Jews out from under oppressive governments. Then, what, they set up their own oppressive gov't?

If I lived there and they banned guns or what not, I'd buy one off of a Palestinian or steal one from the military. Hide it in the yard or walls. RKBA is not a right granted by our constitution, it is a God given right. Disobey all gun laws that don't pertain to harming your neighbor.

gunsmith
July 30, 2003, 12:09 AM
What is stopping a few dozen armed SUICIDAL Republican Guard/Al Queida/or any other group with a grudge
from coming through our porous borders?
Sure they would lose in a few weeks (God Willing) they could roll right through NY/CA and unleash all kinds of grief before we caught up with them.
It seems to me most of the post here look at the invading army as a force that wants to stay and control the civilian population.
I think they see it as a religious war,they win the battle by killing a bunch of us before they go romp with the 70 virgins in heaven.

Personally being surrounded by 70 virgins might not be all that great!
They would never get off the phone with all their friends,you would have to listen to pop groups like Hansen and back street boys for all eternity
and you would never be allowed to use the computer as they would be I_M_ing all night and all day.
You want to watch S.W.A.T you get Legally Blonde :rolleyes:

JohnKSa
July 30, 2003, 12:30 AM
Sam Adams,

My point was, a single UAV can cover an area large enough to EASILY prevent someone from sneaking up on a military force.

As to checking out targets, it takes as long as required for the operator to hit the zoom button to see if it's a cow or a guy with a rifle. There's no way they're going to send out troops... Satellites can see down to a foot or so resolution (best estimate), UAVs are about a hundred miles closer--the best ones should be able to see down to inches of resolution.

All of your examples are from an era before it was possible to easily look at real-time video from an airborne platform.

You (the UAV op) do a wide area surveillance zoomed way out in the IR spectrum. It will easily pick up people and (as you pointed out) deer and cows. When something catches your eye, you switch to visible spectrum and zoom in until you can see if it's a deer, or an armed person or a vehicle. If it's a possible threat, you monitor it and alert the military force if it approaches to within some predetermined boundary. If it becomes an issue, you can have someone zap the threat from the air (if it's a high-value asset being protected) or even using the UAV--they carry weapons now. Or, you can direct forces on the ground to intercept and neutralize the threat.

Point is, he can easily see you and identify you (as a threat or not) as you approach, before you get within MILES of the force, let alone within rifle range.

This ain't your father's military! (To paraphrase Detroit.)

Boats
July 30, 2003, 01:08 PM
This ain't your father's military! (To paraphrase Detroit.)

And it ain't a Tom Clancy novel either. I somewhat agree with you that wilderness ambushes of an armored column doing recon by fire would be the height of stupidity. I disagree that UAVs are all that helpful sorting wheat from chaff when resistance fighters are disguising themselves as civilians, even in the open.

Knowing that the opfor can see you makes the targets of observation change how the are seen. It would be an unintelligent group of yahoos that would travel with their arms in plain sight for the cameras. Blend in as refugees, pose as farmers, have a reason for being where you are. Military folks are human, and like everyone else they get vigilance fatigue from time to time and become complacent when and where things seem normal. It is expressed in the difference of the rigor of sentry duty at a field camp compared to back at the home base where things are more relaxed because nothing is really unfamiliar.

Nevertheless, I don't think if we had domestic resistance to our own military in a suppression scenario that we'd even see people so stupid as to take on the Army in the open. The fedyaeen in Iraq have shown the world the folly of that approach. Now, since major hostilities were declared ceased on May 1, the armed forces have lost as many men in hit and run attacks as they did in open combat. That ratio will only get worse if the dead-enders aren't caught, killed, or otherwise suppressed in the short term.

In our hypothetical, I think it would be one of almost exclusively urbanized resistance. It would also be one in where the tactics would easily shift away from hardend targets to "soft" targets. High on the list of people to whack would be the political leadership of the antagonist forces. Were civilians controlling our military against its own populace the way to attack that problem is not by hacking away feebly at the armed forces, but rather, to strike for the civilian head. Even attempts succeed here as increasingly numerous or effective attacks against politicians would result in an ever increasing clampdown on citizens, which in turn would lead to ever greater losses of popular support for the oppressor leadership. That is where all of the deer rifles come in. It is not Joe Sixpack and his pickup in the woods that demands worrying about, it is Joe Sixpack and his rifle from a rooftop in a place where leaders might be living and working or where the general staff scurries about.

Assymetrical warfare is effective even today. A practioner of it has to be extraordinarily patient, blending in, planting moles in governmental jobs, developing intelligence, protecting against counterintelligence efforts to compromise the cell, and then striking decisively with an exit strategy or expendable forces one has recruited who cannot give you up because they don't know who you are.

The ultimate Western expression of the capability of such a campaign would be, in my mind, the relative success of the IRA and its branch factions from the 1920s onward. From a humble beginning, they became an effective terrorist force, in spite of a heavy crown military presence, travel restrictions, civil rights abrogations, unrelenting counter-intelligence operations, and they carried out some pretty spectacular attacks, enough successfully so, that the UK finally had to blink and try and negotiate a political solution where a military/police oriented one could not be obtained. A "nicer" model of such strategy would be the Norwegian, French, Dutch, Danish and Yugoslavian resistance movements of WWII. They weren't "winning the war," but they were making it relatively expensive to keep the lid on. The political will of an occupier under that kind of pressure eventually fails.

It would be no different here. If guerillas enjoy popular support, they are almost impossible to wipe out militarily using anything less than WMDs.

Texas Bob
July 30, 2003, 09:21 PM
The USA has already been invaded, remember 911. Any future combat will be in urban areas. As a "private" gun owner it is my duty to keep my eyes open to counter the "low-tech" approach the enemy seems to favor. The current administration is worried about nuke power plants being attacked, but I'm more interested in someone "whipping out" a small full auto weapon at a crowded mall or as "the lights start to dim in the theatre." Anyone here that served in Nam can attest that a determined enemy armed with "low-tech" equipment can raise hell. Stay alert, stay armed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Private Gun Owners are are USELESS to national defense, right?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!